Wrong and Missing Ships: How to correct them ALL

[Snagletooth]

@Snagletooth
It seems you have confused a few steps of ship design. According to the source @Paul.Ketcham provided the 1916 authorization did NOT specify the ship design. It was a decision on the total number of ships, ordering the navy to build 24 new DD. Half of these ships were actualy build in time (the last 12 Clemson class DD). Between 1916 and 1931 there were many various ideas what design the remaining 12 ships should have, some were much larger than others (up to 2200t). Ultimately 8 of them were build as the Farragut class (Design process finished on March 27 1931) and 4 as the first Porter class (Design finished in May 1932). Not that the remaining 4 Porter class ships were authorized in 1934.


But they were NOT designed as 1300t. They were designed as 1500 tonners but turned out underweight (Like the Bagley class with a light displacement of 1,407 tons)
Anyway, even their standard displacement (1365t) was more than the full displacement of the Clemson class (1308 tons)
A hull in MtG does not represent displacement but the ship's general capabilities.


Are you really saying that the Farragut class was more similar to the Clemsons than to the Mahan class? Pretty much every source states otherwise.
According to all sources we have (links provided in previous posts), the Mahan class was designed as an incrementally improved Farragut (and the Gridley class was an incrementally improved Mahan etc.). The changes between the various 1930s classes were mainly related to armament, engines, Fire control etc. All these things are represented by modules, not hull type. Obviously the Farraguts were inferior to late 30s designs, but these differences should be represented by different modules on the hull.
Hull tiers should be when a significant step up in design happened. Something that was NOT incremental development.

Based on all sources, It seems to us that such a step up happened between the Clemson (Tier I) and the Farragut class (Tier II). Other posters (@Axe99, @Paul.Ketcham ) agree on that.
Another happened between the Benson/Gleaves class and Fletcher. (either From T2 to T3 OR from T3 to T4)
We have discussed internally if such a step happened between Benham and Sims OR Sims and Benson but decided that they all should be Tier II.


By that logic, Mahan to Benham and arguably even Sims were heavily modified and upgraded/updated Clemson. That would mean in both scenarios the US navy would start with ONLY Tier I DD.


That's vastly exaggerated. Farraguts were at Pearl Harbor to be used as Battleship screens. They have screened CV at Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal and Eastern Solomones. They were reassigned to North Pacific in 1943 when Fletcher class replaced them in the South. Until then they were used as first-rate ships. We completely agree that they were inferior to Sims or Benson classes, but in the game this should be repreented by modules, not hull tier.


It seems useful to copy from our current proposal in the guide.

Change current classes:


add new:




That's what our current proposal looks like (based on earlier discussions in this thread).


We think the changes from Sargo to Tambor (redesign of the bow torpedo room to six TT and torpedo storage) are what a step upward in hull tier represents, and the Gato was an improved Tambor/Gar (same hull but with better engines). But please provide more detailed arguments why you think the step should be Tambor to Gato.

While too advanced for the 1939 starting techs here are the layouts we would curreently envision:
- Tambor/Gar class: Tier III hull with tier II engine and 2xTier II torpedo.

- Gato class: increase engine to Tier III. Rest like Tambor/Gar class


Well, there are pre-dreadnought BB and coastal defence CA hulls for the pre-dreadnought ships, and Dreadnoughts can be represented as having a smaller number of Tier I modules than Super-dreadnoughts.
But a heavy medium module for 10 to 13 inch guns that can be fitted on heavy hulls would help a lot. higher Tiers would represent the Scharhorst and Dunkerque armament better.
Other changes can be represented with using better armor and engines.


What do you mean the Scharhorst is excluded?

As far as the Bismarck is concerned, we agree with @Federkiel


But this brings up the next problemm you've adressed, that all starting techs have been researched without designer.

"but in the game this should be represented by modules, not hull tier."

No, it shouldn't be based on modules. For one many of us don't have MtG for various reasons. Modules are irrelevant. Two, the Hulls define modules to enough of an extent that modules alone is not what makes a a ship a tier up.

Most of your arguments are based on properties that don't exist in the game. Range? You know what the range is on a stack T1 Clemson is? 1500km.

Let me repeat that. 1500km. Clemsons could go 9100km. The T4 Sumner only gets 2500km in game. Basing any of this on range is irrelevant. Not only are ranges not even close to what they were, in actual gameplay since MtG (even for vanilla players) range has as a barrier to anything thing has been completely eliminated. Even if you want to RP range, then that means Bensons are are still whatever hull a Mahan is, and by your argument, a Farragut is the same Hull as a Benson simply because of range.
You really think a 16 ton Benson should be on the same hull as 13 ton Farragut? By virtue of your only argument requires they they should.

You put 5 points into the Clemson engines you get 75 more Kilometers then a stock T2. "You can just say "On paper, this ship could do x and y and therefore deserve a hull bump" when x was never realized in the real world and y doesn't even extrapolate into the game.

1. Was there an advancement from the previous class in way that can be extrapolated into the game?
2. Was that advancement significant enough (and actually realized) to warrant a new hull and not just via upgraded points or modules?

In case of the Farraguts the answer to both is no.

 

[Tonaris]

No, it shouldn't be based on modules. For one many of us don't have MtG for various reasons. Modules are irrelevant. Two, the Hulls define modules to enough of an extent that modules alone is not what makes a a ship a tier up.

I don't see why a discussion about the ship designer (a MtG-only feature) and trying to create historically accurate templates for the two starting dates should be influenced by the flavour names for the generic ship technologies of the base game. You know, the thing it replaces entirely?

Most of your arguments are based on properties that don't exist in the game. Range? You know what the range is on a stack T1 Clemson is? 1500km.

Let me repeat that. 1500km. Clemsons could go 9100km. The T4 Sumner only gets 2500km in game. Basing any of this on range is irrelevant. Not only are ranges not even close to what they were, in actual gameplay since MtG (even for vanilla players) range has as a barrier to anything thing has been completely eliminated. Even if you want to RP range, then that means Bensons are are still whatever hull a Mahan is, and by your argument, a Farragut is the same Hull as a Benson simply because of range.

The Clemsons could go 9100km at a cruising speed of 15kn. One way. If the ship had to actually speed up to combat speeds it would burn through it's fuel a lot faster. Additionally, the
range in HoI4 seems to be operational range, which is necessarily a lot shorter than the range for an one way trip, since the ship has to reach the operational area, finish what ever task it got assigned there and return to port. Also you can transfer ships between your own ports even if you have to cross sea zones that are out of reach for normal operations.

Incidentally, the Mahan actually has a longer range than the Benson and the Farragut is closer to both of them than it is to the Clemson.

 

[Axe99]

What do you think abou the proposals? Would You change anything?

I'd think about putting 2 x Tier II TTs on the Gridleys and Bagleys (they had monstrous torpedo batteries), but that's the only thing I'd change off the top of my head

Let me repeat that. 1500km. Clemsons could go 9100km. The T4 Sumner only gets 2500km in game. Basing any of this on range is irrelevant.

It's very important to appreciate the difference between the endurance (radius) of a ship with a clean hull in perfect conditions, and the effective combat radius of a ship 4-6 months out of dock, in a medium sea-state, having to zig-zag and operate at flank speeds. The rule of thumb I've used is to divide the "nominal" endurance by 3-4, and that gives more-or-less an accurate "effective operational radius". It's similar with aircraft as well (actual combat ranges were far less than nominal maximum operating radius, although aircraft didn't have to worry about hull fouling at least).

Then there are issues with some different radius being given at different speeds, and different rates of fuel efficiency at different speeds for different turbines.

It's even more complicated by most navies using "best possible", while the RN uses for some of its ships "6 months out of dock" - so even the stats you'll see in books aren't necessarily comparable.

In the context of HoI4, for my naval mod, I divided them by 3-4, I think usually 4, but with some leeway to use discretion depending on the factors noted above, and some other bits and bobs.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I've added its template into 1939 bookmark, but it's way too slow (I used 3 heavy turrets though, probably should have just 2 in the game), also I have no idea about its secondaires and AAs, were they good? Were they bad? I don't know other battleships in such detail, and using Paradox ships as reference is probably a bad idea.

You definitely need only 2x heavy battery V. A better engine (Tier III) would increase the speed.
The secondary armament was 6x2 152 mm, 6x2 100mm double-purpose and AA 9sources vary on number of AA guns.
It should probably have 1x secondaries II, 1x dp secondaries and 1x AA II

Most of your arguments are based on properties that don't exist in the game. Range? You know what the range is on a stack T1 Clemson is? 1500km.

Let me repeat that. 1500km. Clemsons could go 9100km. The T4 Sumner only gets 2500km in game. Basing any of this on range is irrelevant. Not only are ranges not even close to what they were, in actual gameplay since MtG (even for vanilla players) range has as a barrier to anything thing has been completely eliminated. Even if you want to RP range, then that means Bensons are are still whatever hull a Mahan is, and by your argument, a Farragut is the same Hull as a Benson simply because of range.

Range in the game indeed needs some rework (probably along with logistics)

But the Hull tier affects only the base stats. All combat stats come from modules.

You really think a 16 ton Benson should be on the same hull as 13 ton Farragut? By virtue of your only argument requires they they should.

Hull tier does not necessarily represent displacement. Porter and Somers were 1850 tons.
If there are only two hulls available, then yes. Take a look at the ONI drawings for the Wickes, Farragut and Benson classes.

We have provided our arguments for and against downgrading Benson to tier II. Ultimately the decision in the group was narrow, and we decided that if the community is in favor of keeping them at tier III.
only two people have adressed this explicitely:
for T2: @Axe99. (@Paul.Ketcham 's argument agains upgrading the Kagero class and later Japanese DD to T3 indirectly counts towards this).
for T3: @Denkt
Your argument that Benson had a better hull than Farragut should probably count towards leaving the Benson at Tier III, but instead you insist on leaving the Farrgaut at Tier I. Their hulls should be either same tier or 1 tier apart.

1. Was there an advancement from the previous class in way that can be extrapolated into the game?
2. Was that advancement significant enough (and actually realized) to warrant a new hull and not just via upgraded points or modules?

In case of the Farraguts the answer to both is no.

The stats that matter here (they depend on the hull) are:
I. Manpower. Currently it depends entirely on the hull tier (and that's unrealistic).

- the Flush Deckers had 6 officers and 95 enlisted in peacetime and about 150 (sources vary on precise numbers) crew in wartime.

- Farragut class was designed for 10 officers and 150 enlisted and 250 total in wartime.

- Other 1930s classes had crew sizes similar to Farragut (precise numbers vary between classes. Porter and Somers had somewhat larger crews, Bagley and Sims had larger peacetime crews).

- Benson increased to 208 peacetime and 176 wartime crew. That’s more than the usual DD but still less than Porter and Somers.

That means that while all ships consume more manpower than a fully-crewed ship IRL the increase was from Clemson to Farragut (a Farragut had more crewmen in peacetime than a Clemson in wartime!)


II. HP and reliability. Tier I hull has 25 HP and 64% reliability, Tier II has 40 HP and 68%.

These are approximations, but it seems that being newer and more advanced ships the Farragut class should have better HP and reliability.

I'd think about putting 2 x Tier II TTs on the Gridleys and Bagleys (they had monstrous torpedo batteries), but that's the only thing I'd change off the top of my head

That would put them on the same level as Benson/Gleaves (2x5 centerline launchers for 10 torpedos broaside). Gridley/Bagley had a broadside of 8 torpedos (2x4 launchers on each side).
If someone else supports your opinon and nobody objects, we'll add this to the guide (would rewuire updating the Sims as well).

 

[=XIII=Wedge]

I was looking through the historical name lists for the Royal Navy and noticed that there isn’t any list for minesweepers.

Is this because the classes like the Halcyon are too small to be represented in game?

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/Specifications/specifications.htm

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/Specifications/1937_specs.htm

There are other classes such as the Bangor or Algerine classes, but again might be too small hence their absence.

https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=132

https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class/140.html

Including Mines into the naval game is great provided that the types of ship that perform the role is represented.

Potentially could use DD1, but concerned this further unbalances the game as the uk would have even more DD that could be used for convoy escort.

Getting an historical name list for minesweepers would be great.

 

[Federkiel]

I was looking through the historical name lists for the Royal Navy and noticed that there isn’t any list for minesweepers.

Is this because the classes like the Halcyon are too small to be represented in game?

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/Specifications/specifications.htm

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/Specifications/1937_specs.htm

There are other classes such as the Bangor or Algerine classes, but again might be too small hence their absence.

https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=132

https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class/140.html

Including Mines into the naval game is great provided that the types of ship that perform the role is represented.

Potentially could use DD1, but concerned this further unbalances the game as the uk would have even more DD that could be used for convoy escort.

Getting an historical name list for minesweepers would be great.

The ingame logics - as far as we know of them - demand a displacement of approximately 1,000 tons to be represented in the game. Quickly looking up the links you provided, they - except the Bangor Class - are close to that limit. Since the German Torpedo Boats are being included as well, it could be considered. The latter however had - unlike the mentioned minesweeper classes - the capabilities of full-fledged albeit small destroyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_torpedo_boats_of_World_War_II

From the perspective of displacement i find it basically considerable to include them. There just is the problem that we would need a separate hull class for them to limit the modules, speed and other capabilities to the historical properties of these minesweepers.

 

[valisk]

This bugs me every time I open the designer.

Admiral Class could not be repeated under the WNT restrictions, and G3 is perhaps the canonical WNT restricted ship for Royal Navy buffs
~48,000 tonnes, triple 3x 16"/45 batteries (though I notice Friedman says she was actually ordered with 16"/50 in British Battleships I'm assuming that's a typo given the guns were produced and used for R&N and they were 16"/45), 180,000shp engine, AON armour scheme equal to the protection of the Nelson class battleships, 32.5kts (estimated) She actually would have been banned even by the escalator clause, if the RN was to ignore the Rodney and Nelson experience and build her without modifications from the 1921 plans.

Yet lookee here, I can immediately start to build two ship classes displacing 45k+ tonnes, and absolutely excluded. And to attempt to accurately create a G3 would require T3 BB armour and a T4 engine.

I hate to do so, but I recommend we request paradox strike this design from the books.

 

[Axe99]

Gridley/Bagley had a broadside of 8 torpedos (2x4 launchers on each side).

Sorry - I should have mentioned this. This is going from memory, but I can't imagine why I'd think it if I hadn't read it, but I think the torpedoes and TTs on Gridley/Bagley supported the use of gyros to set direction after launch, such that it would be theoretically possible to launch all 16 at once. And, because my memory is dodgy, I've just confirmed that with Conways 1922-1946 and Destroyers of World War II. A reasonable case could be made for a heavier torpedo battery, but I suspect the module slots/tech won't accommodate it.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I was looking through the historical name lists for the Royal Navy and noticed that there isn’t any list for minesweepers.

Is this because the classes like the Halcyon are too small to be represented in game?

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/Specifications/specifications.htm

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/Specifications/1937_specs.htm

There are other classes such as the Bangor or Algerine classes, but again might be too small hence their absence.

https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class.html?ID=132

https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class/140.html

Including Mines into the naval game is great provided that the types of ship that perform the role is represented.

Potentially could use DD1, but concerned this further unbalances the game as the uk would have even more DD that could be used for convoy escort.

Getting an historical name list for minesweepers would be great.

Minesweepers and DE/sloops in general are absent as units. Light ship hulls are fast by default, but these ships were very slow IRL (15 to 18 knots). As they would have few modules (1x light battery I, 1x AAI and Minesweeping gear for MS or Depth charges for DE) they would have speed of over 30knots in the game even with Tier I hull and engine. Twice as much as IRL. Until the game gets a tier 0 light ship hull OR tier 0 engine that makes ships much slower but much cheaper, these ships cannot be properly implemented.
Tthe combat abilities of these a ships was about the same as a repurposed fishing trawler with a few guns installed.

The lack of namelists somewhat implies that these ships are not supposed to be represented.
They are working off-map as minefields disappear adfter a peace deal, implying that the MS were doing it.
The Minesweeping modules are for fast minesweepers like the converted DMS.
Getting an historical name list for minesweepers would be great.[/QUOTE]

The ingame logics - as far as we know of them - demand a displacement of approximately 1,000 tons to be represented in the game. Quickly looking up the links you provided, they - except the Bangor Class - are close to that limit. Since the German Torpedo Boats are being included as well, it could be considered. The latter however had - unlike the mentioned minesweeper classes - the capabilities of full-fledged albeit small destroyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_torpedo_boats_of_World_War_II

From the perspective of displacement i find it basically considerable to include them. There just is the problem that we would need a separate hull class for them to limit the modules, speed and other capabilities to the historical properties of these minesweepers.

German large TB are the only ones implemented properly. French and Italian ones are depicted as full destroyers which makes the too powerful and expensive.
Japanese and Soviet ones of similar size and armament are absent, slightly weakening these navies.
But ships of 600 tons are present in the game, (very old DD like Draug, Para and Guadiana classes). Our guide adds the large TB with essentially same templates (sometimes with AA unlike old DD)

What is apparently too small are short-ranged ships of 300 to 500 tons but they were almost as fast as regular old DD.
These would be the Niki and Thyella class old DD (Greece), Dragen, Glenten (Denmark) Trad (Siam) Viforul and Naluca (Romania) class TB.

I hate to do so, but I recommend we request paradox strike this design from the books.

The G3 is indeed too cheap although we didn't want to propose deleting any design. But if there's no way to buff the G3 over the treaty limit (perhaps more secondaries and better AA?), it seems better to remove them completely.

Sorry - I should have mentioned this. This is going from memory, but I can't imagine why I'd think it if I hadn't read it, but I think the torpedoes and TTs on Gridley/Bagley supported the use of gyros to set direction after launch, such that it would be theoretically possible to launch all 16 at once. And, because my memory is dodgy, I've just confirmed that with Conways 1922-1946 and Destroyers of World War II. A reasonable case could be made for a heavier torpedo battery, but I suspect the module slots/tech won't accommodate it.

all 1930s US DD classes used quad launchers, some centerline and some on the sides but all had an 8 torpedos broadside.
OK, it seems the most resonable approximation would be
- Farragut class: 2x Tier I

- Mahan AND Sims class: 1x Tier I and 1x Tier II

- Gridley/Bagley/Benham class: 2x Tier II

However this leaves the question how the torpedo armament on the Benson class and all alter DD should be represented. It was 2x5 centerline launchers IRL and this was considered an improvement compared to all previous arrangments.

That would mean 2xT3 would seem reasonable, but US lacks the tech.

Perhaps if the Benson & Gleaves class hull is downgraded to Tier II as we currently suggest, the US should lose the 1940 light ship hull tech (as there would be no designs with this hull) but get the 1940 torpedo launcher instead?

- This would give the Benson class the arguably best equipment on a T2 DD hull worldwide in the 39 scenario.

- It would allow the US to research the T3 hull with a ship design company of the player’s choice for the Fletcher class


Important Questions to the community:
I: Should we propose to add the 300-500 ton ships as well? even with minimal modules, the ships would be slightly stronger than IRL, but that would buff these navies somewhat, and they could need it.

II. What do you think of the changes to Amercian torpedo modules and techs we've proposed above? (This is arguably a continuation of the Benson hull tier discussion)

 

[Frank+Frei]

I: Should we propose to add the 300-500 ton ships as well? even with minimal modules, the ships would be slightly stronger than IRL, but that would buff these navies somewhat, and they could need it.

IMO we shouldn't add ships under 500 tons otherwise it's like opening pandoras can

 

[Axe99]

However this leaves the question how the torpedo armament on the Benson class and all alter DD should be represented. It was 2x5 centerline launchers IRL and this was considered an improvement compared to all previous arrangments.

That would mean 2xT3 would seem reasonable, but US lacks the tech.

Perhaps if the Benson & Gleaves class hull is downgraded to Tier II as we currently suggest, the US should lose the 1940 light ship hull tech (as there would be no designs with this hull) but get the 1940 torpedo launcher instead?

I'd leave them the same and consider it a close enough approximation (ie, 2 x T2 torps for both) and have Benson & Gleaves as a T2 hull, but that's just me . None of the approximations suggested are far enough off the mark for me to worry though.

I: Should we propose to add the 300-500 ton ships as well? even with minimal modules, the ships would be slightly stronger than IRL, but that would buff these navies somewhat, and they could need it.

I'd argue including these ships, particularly leaving out current modules, would have things start to look pretty ridiculous. If a 300t ship ends up with stats similar to a 1000t TB/WW1 TB, then that's the kind of thing I'd be keen to mod out of the base game for being ahistorical in terms of capabilities. The slower sloops and corvettes were far more important in terms of the war at sea, particularly on a strategic level, and also far more capable combat-wise than most 300-500t ships - so even though the speed would be off, it would make more sense including 30kt corvettes (as silly as that sounds) than 300-500t TBs. Just my 2 cents of course, and totally ignorable . Views could well change if appropriate hulls/modules were available as well.

 

[valisk]

Minesweepers and DE/sloops in general are absent as units. Light ship hulls are fast by default, but these ships were very slow IRL (15 to 18 knots). As they would have few modules (1x light battery I, 1x AAI and Minesweeping gear for MS or Depth charges for DE) they would have speed of over 30knots in the game even with Tier I hull and engine. Twice as much as IRL. Until the game gets a tier 0 light ship hull OR tier 0 engine that makes ships much slower but much cheaper, these ships cannot be properly implemented.
Tthe combat abilities of these a ships was about the same as a repurposed fishing trawler with a few guns installed.
....

Black Swan sloops would fit the bill tonnage wise, but for the engine speed, they were build for endurance and range not high speed. They had 4" DP armament and depth charges, and did account for a fair proportion of U-Boat Kills.
I agree that we need again an extra engine module to cover this if these classes of ships are to make an entrance as distinct from the unsatisfactory T1 destroyer used as escorts.

The G3 is indeed too cheap although we didn't want to propose deleting any design. But if there's no way to buff the G3 over the treaty limit (perhaps more secondaries and better AA?), it seems better to remove them completely.

The more I think it over the more I think it should simply be removed.
The G3 design is very old by 1936, and unbuilt, it had been superseded in design thinking many times over and by the late 20's and early 30's the odd looking Nelson and Rodney all guns up front style design had been put away for the traditional guns before and after the conning tower, due to experience with the crazy looking duo and how they fared and handled. I cannot at all see the G3 being resurrected by the RN in '36.
If it is supposed to exist for the UK as an example of what they could have built had there been no treaty then it has to have a 12001+ build cost really, and come close to the original parameters on speed, weapons and protection.

The in-game design is very inaccurate by those standards, to reach close to it's base speed it needs an engine of a type not represented in game until the final tier and should have AON (t3) BB armour, not t2 BC armour. The present 'G3' design falls far short of the speed and protection this class would have had if built historically, it is just a lightly armoured Nelson companion class in the style of a pre-Jutland Battlecruiser. The RN gave up on that concept as they built the Hood, both she and G3 were very fast battleships that used the moniker Battlecruiser to distinguish them from the slower line Battleships. G3 in particular made absolutely no compromise on armour, and the small improvements made to the Nelsons during construction probably would have been made to the 4 planned G3s too.

Here is another alternative attempt at a G3 design that to my eyes is much closer to what it should be, and like the thoughts with R&N it is a T2 Hull.
It should have the smaller 4.7 DP AA in place of the larger one as per above, but even having it as a pure unbuildable design would require giving the UK a lot of extra tech in the '36 scenario, which might be somewhat reasonable in the '39 scenario, but probably isn't from a gameplay perspective in '36. (and it still isn't expensive enough )

Important Questions to the community

:
I: Should we propose to add the 300-500 ton ships as well? even with minimal modules, the ships would be slightly stronger than IRL, but that would buff these navies somewhat, and they could need it.

II. What do you think of the changes to Amercian torpedo modules and techs we've proposed above? (This is arguably a continuation of the Benson hull tier discussion)

I. I'm not sure we should without more limited ship models.

II. I do like the sound of that.

 

[Federkiel]

I think i found a bug yesterday. Playing Italy after a long time again, i had to find out they do not have any cruiser hull II templates in the setup. This means heavy cruisers. It is not even possible to create one. I doubt that this is a deliberate design decision.

Alternatively, might it be intended that Italy is supposed to take a CL template and entirely redesign it that way?

Aside from the suggestions already made in the respective forum section, has this been reported as a bug and been noticed by the devs already? Since i did not find any thread on it, i am going to post one.

EDIT: Checked the 1939 scenario as well - it's the same there.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

It seems everyone so far is against the coastal TB.

I. I'm not sure we should without more limited ship models.

Probably a tier 0 light ship hull with short range and perhaps only one custom slot would represent their abilites well. But until there is such a hull, better to leave them out.

I'd leave them the same and consider it a close enough approximation (ie, 2 x T2 torps for both) and have Benson & Gleaves as a T2 hull, but that's just me . None of the approximations suggested are far enough off the mark for me to worry though.

But the Torpedo Launchers (2x5 centerline) were the same on the Benson class as on all later classes including the Gearing. Wouldn't 2 x T2 armament be too weak?

I think i found a bug yesterday. Playing Italy after a long time again, i had to find out they do not have any cruiser hull II templates in the setup. This means heavy cruisers. It is not even possible to create one. I doubt that this is a deliberate design decision.

Alternatively, might it be intended that Italy is supposed to take a CL template and entirely redesign it that way?

Aside from the suggestions already made in the respective forum section, has this been reported as a bug and been noticed by the devs already? Since i did not find any thread on it, i am going to post one.

EDIT: Checked the 1939 scenario as well - it's the same there.

Looks like a bug, you should probably report it (even if it's been already reported a long time ago, the devs didn't correct it in 1.9.1, perhaps they forgot about the old report).

 

[Axe99]

But the Torpedo Launchers (2x5 centerline) were the same on the Benson class as on all later classes including the Gearing. Wouldn't 2 x T2 armament be too weak?

This is another situation where the techs don't match the historical development very well. Pentad (five-tube traversable above-water) torpedo tubes were the largest launchers both before and after WW2, so there's not a huge justification for a 1944 torpedo tube module (but a strong justification for four tiers, but the first tier to be a WW1-era twin traversable TT). If the 1940 is the pentads (which it could be argued to be), then (for historical progression) the Brits need to be able to research it for their J, K and Ns (laid down in late '37). And by this stage we're taking a torch to the structure of the tech tree (something I would and hopefully will do in a mod at some stage), so well outside the scope of the original thread.

In the context of the tech tree we've been given, though, I'd be happy enough with pentads being represented by the T3, but would suggest doing it consistently across all classes with pentad launchers. There's also an argument for making the Japanese 61cm quad a T3 if this is done, given the greater weight of explosive in each of the larger torpedoes.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Technically side-launchers should be completely-different in practice than centerline-launchers. Side-mounted torpedo launchers were a lot heavier for their broadside weight, but since you had one set on each side you could fire more torpedoes during a battle, meaning the game easily has the potential to make a second launcher type with higher-cost but a faster reload of torpedoes (3 rounds instead of 4, for instance, since you also have the admiral trait for 25% faster reloads and there's the issue of ammo regardless of launchers).

Of course, now we're back into reworking the tech tree again... sorry.

 

[Axe99]

Technically side-launchers should be completely-different in practice than centerline-launchers. Side-mounted torpedo launchers were a lot heavier for their broadside weight, but since you had one set on each side you could fire more torpedoes during a battle, meaning the game easily has the potential to make a second launcher type with higher-cost but a faster reload of torpedoes (3 rounds instead of 4, for instance, since you also have the admiral trait for 25% faster reloads and there's the issue of ammo regardless of launchers).

Of course, now we're back into reworking the tech tree again... sorry.

Aye, one way of looking at TTs is that each 'tick' in HoI4 is an hour, which is plenty of time for a DD to swing around and fire their other TT broadside. And then there's the Japanese reload systems....

 

[valisk]

Technically side-launchers should be completely-different in practice than centerline-launchers. Side-mounted torpedo launchers were a lot heavier for their broadside weight, but since you had one set on each side you could fire more torpedoes during a battle, meaning the game easily has the potential to make a second launcher type with higher-cost but a faster reload of torpedoes (3 rounds instead of 4, for instance, since you also have the admiral trait for 25% faster reloads and there's the issue of ammo regardless of launchers).

Of course, now we're back into reworking the tech tree again... sorry.

To be fair, the tech tree does need a fair bit of reworking, there is plenty to look at including the torpedo tubes, things like dual purpose guns, AON armour scheme, guns and so on were mostly old tech by the time WW2 Rolled around. Making functional and useful large caliber 18" and larger rapid firing and tracking DP guns seems to have been the last real frontier, with 18"s its one that didn't exactly tax anyone, the USN tried and abandoned an 18"/47 as the (1916 developed tech) 16"/50 provided for them the right balance when coupled with a capable turret.

The exciting new stuff was ever improving Radar, Hydrophones (for subs and destroyers) and advanced director fire systems, fire control computers and AA, with the hidden improvements being advanced compartmentalization of the engine and machinery spaces and internal protection schemes, anti-torpedo bulges, much more efficient boilers. diesel electric generators and pumping systems.

Some are included such as Radar, FC is a disappointment due to increasing the general unreliability of the ship, ASW Sonar systems are fully researchable to their maximum potential from day 1, there is no improvement at all during the whole course of the war, which is profoundly wrong, AA does more damage but doesn't hit as often due to the increasing agility of bombers, where my impression is that AA became very useful and quite dangerous mid war onward with improved Radar AA directors, FC systems and proximity fuses, spurring development into radio guided missile systems, guided missile jamming systems, and of course the introduction of the infamous Kamikazes.

I suspect that these things don't sound as exciting or promise as much to eager players as bigger guns and better armour.

There is even a case for adding 'alt-history' type tech given how much alt-history stuff is in the various Focus Trees. Mixed oil and Coal-dust fuel (as used by some commercial steamers), injected coal dust or even a return to good old oil sprayed coal as had been vigorously campaigned for (much to the annoyance of the admiralty) in the UK in the 30s.

Giving a player an option to choose the most likely of these, the oil suspended coal dust system (which was successfully used in commercial shipping), would reduce their dependence on oil at the expense of reliability and an increase in ships complement, one of the chief reasons the admiralty decided against it historically, despite their being quite interested in alternatives to oil. (as an aside, I think the UK should certainly start with the synthetic oil experiments technology researched based on its capabilities and small but functional industry from the mid 20's onwards)

 

[UncleAlias]

Don't know if it was mentioned yet, but there is also a typo in French submarine "L'Espoire"; it should be "L'Espoir", no final e. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Espoir_(Q167)

 

[Ketchup & friends]

@Axe99 @Paul.Ketcham @valisk
Well, the pentuple centerline launcher can be considered T3 tech with T4 reseved for a sextuple launcher (planned for Super-Akizuki class).
Only Benson/Gleaves and J/K/N classes had this armrment in 1939.
If US and UK get the 1940 torpedo launcher tech but lose the 1940 versions of light ship hull (US) and submarine hull (UK) respectively the number of techs they have would stay the same.
With the Benson class hull downgraded to T2 the US won't need that hull and UK has no sub classes that would require a T3 hull.
And leaving the hull tech unresearched would allow the player to research it with the design company of their choice.

This won't require a tech rework.